Fatigued Sacramento Doctor Causes Auto Accident, Part 6 of 11

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

The majority of the new allegations in the First Amended Complaint describe the residency training that Dr. Black should have heeded in order to avoid causing the subject auto accident. Dr. Black was provided training at Central Hospital, prior to the incident, about the specific risk posed to the public by fatigued or sleep-deprived medical residents. The article “Extended Work Shifts and the Risk of Motor Vehicle Crashes Among Interns,” published by the New England Journal of Medicine on January 13, 2005, was just one of many scientific journal articles offered to Dr. Black on the subject. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The collective information regarding Dr. Black’s training is directly relevant to the action and establishes the fact that Dr. Black was acutely aware of the dangerous risks posed to the public, including plaintiff, by driving home in a fatigued or sleepy condition after being awake for a continuous 18 hours. Plaintiff has sufficiently, and with much detail, alleged the many ways in which Dr. Black acted with malice and oppression by willfully disregarding her relevant training on many levels. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The present case is highly distinguishable from Austin v. Regents of Univ. of California (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 354, where the Court held, … the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are purely conclusory.

Here, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is replete with facts establishing how Dr. Black acted with a willful and intentional decision to operate a motor vehicle in a fatigued, sleepy and impaired condition. Her conduct was despicable in light of her residency training at Central Hospital.

Also, Central Hospital provides its residents with alternative means of travel, such as a shuttle to BART or taxi vouchers, but Dr. Black willfully and knowingly chose to drive home with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of plaintiff and other members of the public. Further, the allegations in Paragraph 32 establish that Dr. Black acted with oppression, in that her conduct was vile, base or contemptible to a degree that would be looked down upon by reasonable people, and her conduct subjected plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in knowing disregard of plaintiff’s rights.

The allegations contained in paragraph 32 contain salient facts as to Dr. Black’s malicious and oppressive conduct, and should not be stricken from the First Amended Complaint. (See Part 7 of 11.)